Attention button (branch of Use case for per-protocol icons)
h.bons at student.rug.nl
Tue Aug 7 07:23:56 EDT 2007
I'd say let's show how each of Josh's protocol pains can be solved now. :)
Attached a mockup with an additional "Attention!" button, that takes the
protocol in my mind.
It can also be placed in the "Insert" menu.
Sean Egan wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Josh Williams <yurimxpxman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That does not account for the completely protocol-dependent
>> functionality, such as /nudge, /buzz, etc.
> It does. It is desirable to have, and we are currently developing a
> consistent, API and user interface for this "get alert" (nudge, buzz,
> etc) feature. You seem to be stuck in a box defined by your habits
> that you can't get out of and see that there are better ways to handle
> these things than showing protocol icons.
>> Personally, I do not even group people's accounts into one contact.
>> It's a PITA because I make heavy usage of each protocol's features.
> Such a what? We tend not to support features that have very little
> wide-spread support.
>> I suppose that's just a core principle that we disagree about. I'm in
>> favor of emphasising people, but not at the expense of reduced
>> functionality (in this case, addressing the UI as technology).
> There is no reduced functionality.
>> One half of one second *plus the use of your mouse*. I don't know
>> about you, but I avoid using the mouse (don't say I'm the only one -
>> even RMS has told me he does the same), *especially* for trivial
>> things that should be shown to me anyways. (eg., I prefer gmail over
>> AOL mail partially because I don't want to click "Inbox" before I see
>> my mail; it should 'just be there'.)
> Perhaps we should make tooltips work if you're using keyboard
> navigation. Perhaps if you navigate to a blist node via your keyboard
> keys, that causes its tooltip to show off to the side.
>> I am still not even convinced that there really *are* any benefits of
>> the green circle. The only argument for it I can see is that you think
>> it looks nicer, but that's merely a matter of opinion.
> It's a simple, consistent, uncomplicated indicator of status. The
> previous system used an inconsistent, complex, jumble of various
> emblems and icons: a complex bitmap of confusion, if you will.
>> No you wouldn't. You've already stated that you don't _care_ about my
>> problems. You prefer simplicity over functionality. If that's the way
>> you like it, God bless you, too. I simply differ in fundamental design
>> concepts, so I have no intention of contributing to the pidgin UI.
> *Nobody* has *ever* said they don't care about your problems. We're
> just encouraging you to look outside of the box you've fallen into
> through habit. We eagerly want to hear your actual problems and
> determine how to best fix them. We've already fixed a whole bunch of
> problems that have reveled themselves by removing protocol icons, and
> we'd love to do more.
> I look forward to seeing your Qt UI.
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 19433 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Devel